Round Reports
Quarterfinals Round Coppell High School Tournament
Affirmative: Greenhill
Negative: Grapevine
1AC
Greenhill argued that the United States federal government should include algae in the list of renewable fuels that receive a tax incentive and include it in the Renewable Fuels Standards. This change would increase the types of fuels that could be used to meet the minimum amount of renewable energy in gasoline. Algae can become the fuel of the future if it gets off the ground. The affirmative argued that incentivizing algae will lead to a decrease in ethanol use. Relying too heavily on ethanol leads to a monocrop. Monocrops destroy biodiversity and can lead to decreased food security. The affirmative claimed that we are one monocrop away from starvation. Algae also produces phosphorous. When we grown food we deplete phosphorous and need to replenish it. It would be catastrophic if we depleted phosphorous; it is as critical as water.
Negative Strategy
Solvency: Grapevine argued that the plan would fail because algae would not become cost competitive. Also, because the plan does not stop ethanol use completely, phosphorous would still be depleted so the affirmative cannot solve for their advantage. The affirmative countered that the plan would give a tax incentive to algae to make it profitable. Algae will renew the phosphorous.
Topicality: The negative argued that the word increase in the resolution means that plans must increase an existing program. They argue that this interpretation creates a more stable literature base for the negative. The affirmative gives a counter definition that increase is to make greater in number and does not mean they have to increase an existing program. They argue that the negative's interpretation kills negative ground for disadvantages. They also argue that they do increase alternative energy within an existing program-the Renewable Fuels Standard.
Counterplan: Grapevine runs a counterplan that the United States should ban all ethanol. They do not go for this argument. The affirmative perms the argument and also argues that algae is not cost competitive in the status quo so without the plan algae would not take off. If algae does not increase the counterplan cannot solve for the phosphorous advantage.
Discourse Critique: Grapevine said that the affirmative used language that made them sound like nuclear experts. They said that taking the role of defense intellectuals distorts the truth and incites violence. The affirmative argued that the negative also talked about nuclear war in one of their impact cards. The negative responded that conditionality is good. It leads to a fair division of ground. The affirmative had tons of time to write the affirmative plan. Conditionality allows the negative to look for the best option. They also argued that the perm checks abuse because it allows the affirmative to advocates multiple worlds also.
Global -Local Critique: The negative argued that the language of nationalism and sovereignty makes the state paramount and leads to violence. They argue that we should instead act within our own communities. Stop thinking of UN peacekeeping and start thinking of the neighborhood watch. They argue that their advocacy solves the case, not in the traditional way, but they solve for the world in which the impacts can happen. They concede that they do not solve for peak phosphorous, but that dehumanization outweighs it. They argue that utility is the ultimate evil and must be rejected at any cost. It is dehumanizing because it makes everyone into numbers. Asking which option will save the most people led to Hiroshima. It allows people to be extendible. Also, no one can foresee the future. The plan may have unintended consequences. In addition, people aren't reasonable actors. They are only slaves of the state. The state tells us lies and trumps up certain problems to keep its power. They argued that allowing their framework in debate increases philosophical education and forces the affirmative to defend their assumptions. The affirmative argued that the power of the state to embrace utility is good. We can only work from within the system to achieve any results. The only way to stop global atrocities is to recognize them and enact policies to stop them. They read a card that said resource wars are the worst form of dehumanization. They argued that the alternative does not stop the phosphorous depletion. Phosphorous is key to keep people alive. Don't forget about a billion people suffering because the negative wants to embrace a certain philosophy. They also permed the argument. The negative argued that their perm is abusive because it is either intrinsic or severance. The affirmative argued that their perm is not abusive because they do not go for it. It does not make them a moving target. The judges should reject the argument, not the team.
The negative won on a 3-0 decision.
Best Regards: MBEC's Team
0 komentar:
Post a Comment